Outrages

The Burlington Free Press reported ("Dinner at 1600," Feb. 23) that as President Barack Obama was offering a toast before a four-course dinner at the White House, he acknowledged a tuxedo-clad Vermont Governor Jim Douglas as "an extraordinary partner with this White House." Obama was referring to the work of the National Governors Association on the Common Core Standards in math and reading.

The New York Times called this national standards effort "a bipartisan project at variance with the highly polarized political mood in Washington." I call it a unilateral policy leaving out teachers, students, and parents.

For starters, I'd like to ask all the governors if they have read As I Lay Dying, with its 15 narrators, offered, along with Pride and Prejudice as Exemplar Text for 11th graders. I'd like to ask Bill and Melinda Gates, too. After all, they gave $1 million smackers to the PTA to promote these standards.

And how about Wordsworth's Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1800), presented as an Exemplar Text, for 9th graders? When I grappled with Wordsworth's great principle of emotion recollected in tranquility as a grad student, I figured I had only myself to blame. After all, I'd chosen to be an English major. And to go to grad school. But hapless 14-year-olds across the land aren't English majors and they have no stake at all in this canon which is traveling as someone's idea of rigor.

Please look up the definition of rigor, and the next time you hear a corporate politico -- or Bill Gates -- call for rigor in the schools, shelter your children.

Do our nation's governors think 14-year-olds will embrace Wordsworth's declarations about the source of the sexual appetite, and all the passions connected with it? And if not, perhaps our Chief State School Officers might offer some ideas for differentiated teaching strategies. After all, the Council of Chief State School Officers were co-conspirators in the production of the Common Core document.

Things are just as dicey for younger students. Here are two selections the National Governors Association and the Chief State School Officers offer as Exemplar Narratives for children in grades 6-8: "Allegory of the Cave" from The Republic by Plato (380 BCE) and "Address to Students at Moscow State University" by Ronald Reagan (1988).

A friend of mine said that she'd read As I Lay Dying, and as a result never went near another book by Faulkner. Of course, Faulkner is not the point here. A good teacher can pull students through just about anything, but the danger here is that the kid who has "survived " such a piece of literature will be reluctant to pick up another book. And that's a tragedy. I regard it as my sacred duty as a teacher to help individual students find individual books that will knock their socks off, books that touch their lives in such a way that they will be compelled to read another book. And another.

According to the Burlington Free Press account, both Obama and Douglas offered toasts with glasses of water. One can only wonder what the people devising the Common Core were drinking. The Exemplar Text lists offered as an appendix to the Common Core are baffling -- and ludicrous -- at every grade level.

In order to qualify for the pots of money President Obama is eager to hand out, states must accept 100 percent of the Common Core standards document. They cannot pick and choose. Exercising any judgment based on what teachers and parents know about kids and about literature is forbidden. To get the Obama bribe, state politicos must promise that schoolchildren will be forced to swallow ALL the Kool-Aid.

The governors, the chief state school officers, and President Obama insist these are "high-quality education standards," drawing on "the most important international models as well as research and input from numerous sources, including scholars, assessment developers, professional organizations, and educators from kindergarten through college. In their design and content, the Standards represent a synthesis of the best elements of standards-related work to date and an important advance over that previous work."

Sesame vs. Watermelon: What is Missing in the National Standard Debate

19 January 2010

“When you picked up a sesame seed, you have lost the watermelon.” This simple Chinese saying can serve as a good reminder for advocates of national standards, who are lured by the potential benefits of common curriculum standards may just be going after a sesame seed while ignoring the watermelon that is running away.

A recent article by Education Week reporter Sean Cavanagh published with the 2010 Quality Counts provides an overview of the national debate about common standards. It begins with “the incontrovertible” logic for establishing national or common academic standards for students in the United States:

Why should students in one state be introduced to a topic such as fractions as 1st graders, to cite a common example, when their peers in other states won’t cover that mathematics topic until later? More broadly, why does the United States—a mobile society in a globally competitive era—maintain an education system that tests students, trains teachers, and churns out textbooks and classroom materials based on the myriad and often idiosyncratic demands of different states?

The article then cites American students standing in international tests as further evidence in favor of national standards: “In several higher-performing nations, a single set of national academic standards guides all or most of those decisions.”

The article lists the “persistent” obstacles to establishing national standards: concerns that national standards may threat the US federal education system and concerns about the quality of national standards.

But the article fails to point out a bigger concern shared by many educators: the cost of national or common standards.

By cost I do not mean the money, time, and effort needed to develop national curriculum standards. Rather, I mean the lost opportunities for our children to receive a real education.

A curriculum standard, such as the one the NGA and CCSSO has been working on, defines what students should know in a subject at a certain point of their school career. If thoughtfully developed and provided as a guide for teachers, students, parents, and curriculum/textbook developers, a curriculum standard can be a useful professional tool. However, when the standard becomes national or common across all states and high stakes tests are used to enforce its implementation across the nation, problems arise.

First, what is tested is what is taught. As the past 8 years of NCLB have shown, schools will work very hard to teach only the subjects that matter in mandated state tests. Thus, if we only have two subjects that have national standards and tests, we can expect that American schools will narrow education to the teaching of these subjects. As a result, our children’s education experience will be reduced to the learning of these two subjects.

Second, by the same logic, teachers, especially when their income is dependent on student test scores, will work very hard to teach to the tests that matter. And as a result, our children will be trained to become expert test takers in the subjects with national standards, enforced through high stakes testing.

Third, those children who do not perform well on the tests to meet the grade level expectations prescribed by the standards will be deemed “at risk” and put in remedial sessions and thus deprived of the opportunity to participate in other education opportunities, regardless of their reasons. In other words, those children who come disadvantaged communities and families can be further disadvantaged by being labeled “at risk.” Those who may have strengths in areas other than the tested subjects with national standards will not have the opportunity to develop their strengths.

Thus, even if national standards have the benefit of equalizing expectations and improving test scores in the subject areas with standards, which by the way is not necessarily the case judging from research (read an article I wrote a while back), the cost of real educational opportunities is too high. We may raise our standing on international math and literacy tests, but we risk the loss of what really matters (read my book).

The debate about national standards should really be a debate about what education is, what kind of skills and knowledge should be taught, and what truly are essential for our children to succeed in the 21^st century. We cannot simply look at what is taught in a subject area. We must consider the meaning of education. After all, what we want is the big watermelon, not the tiny sesame seed.

Alfie Kohn’s commentary “Debunking the Case for National Standards” included in the same issue of Ed Week presents another powerful argument against national standards.

Education: Debunking the Case for National Standards - Alfie Kohn

[This is a slightly expanded version of the article published in
Education Week’s annual “Quality Counts” issue.]

Please notice that Doug Kubach, the president and CEO of Pearson, will be testifying at this full committee meeting. Pearson, because of its world-wide testing and curricula entities, stands to make a fortune over national standards/curricula/tests. How likely is it that he will be able to give an impartial presentation before the House ELC?

The House Education and Labor Committee will hold a hearing [before the full House ELC committee] on Tuesday, December 8 at 10:00 a.m. EST titled “Improving Our Competitiveness: Common Core Education Standards.” Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, Jr. will testify on behalf of NGA and will give an update on the NGA/Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Common Core State Standards Initiative. Other witnesses include Gene Wilhoit, executive director of CCSSO; Doug Kubach, president and CEO of Pearson; and Cathy Allen, vice chair of the Board of Education at St. Mary’s County Public Schools. The hearing will take place in 2175 Rayburn House Office Building.

Committee Members

Full Committee, 111th Congress

CHICAGO, IL--(Marketwire - December 2, 2009) - National PTA is positioning itself as a key player at the front line of education reform. The association today announced a new three-year effort to mobilize parents to advance key education priorities, beginning with common core state standards -- a voluntary, state-led, internationally benchmarked set of high academic standards in English language arts and mathematics. A $1 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will help support the effort.

Beginning in January 2010, National PTA will educate and train PTA members and parents about the common core state standards, focusing early outreach in four states: Florida, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina. National PTA plans to engage additional states as this work moves forward in mid-2010.

"Currently, there are disparities in the level of rigor because every state has a different set of standards. This reform effort will educate parents about the need for higher, clearer and fewer standards so that they know what their child should be learning in school and how they can support learning at home," said Charles J. "Chuck" Saylors, National PTA President. "Parents should be able to rest assured that their child is up to par with their peers across the country and around the world no matter where they choose to raise their child."

For decades, National PTA has taken action for children. Through this effort, the association is taking another step toward education reform by addressing common core standards. It is National PTA's fundamental belief that every child, regardless of zip code, deserves an equal education, and all teachers deserve a set of clear, high standards.

"Education standards have historically been too vast and too vague to provide the focus required for students and teachers to achieve at high levels," said Vicki L. Phillips, Director of Education, College-Ready, at the Gates Foundation. "National PTA and its five million members can be a leading voice in the common core standards movement, raising academic expectations nationwide and preparing all students for success beyond high school."

National PTA is committed to ensuring that all students graduate college- and career-ready. Earlier this year in June the association called for the creation of common core state standards and became an endorsing partner of the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers' Common Core State Standards Initiative. In September, National PTA also offered its full support of the initiative's draft college- and career-readiness standards.

To date, 51 states and territories have joined the Common Core State Standards Initiative. The full K-12 standards are expected to be finalized in early 2010.

"National PTA believes that there should be a level playing field among states, school districts and schools that will give all students the opportunity to be ready for their college and career. This effort will bring us one step closer to real education reform. It will ensure equity in education nationwide and will improve the level of rigor that will ultimately make the U.S. more competitive with other leading countries," said Byron V. Garrett, National PTA's Chief Executive Officer.

National PTA comprises millions of families, students, teachers, administrators, and business and community leaders devoted to the educational success of children and the promotion of family engagement in schools. PTA is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit association that prides itself on being a powerful voice for all children, a relevant resource for families and communities, and a strong advocate for public education. Membership in PTA is open to anyone who wants to be involved and make a difference for the education, health, and welfare of children and youth.

Duncan Blows Off Constitution, Facts

It never ceases to amaze me how effortlessly federal “educators” blow off the Constitution. Amazing me today is none other than U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, who in an address to the National Association of State Boards of Education offered the following cavalier dismissal of the Supreme Law of the Land:

Here you see a textbook example of how you can brush off the Constitution in just a few easy steps! First, you acknowledge (actually, this part is optional) that authority over education is nowhere among the federal government’s specifically enumerated powers. Next, you shamelessly imply that all the founders really wanted power over education to be in the Constitution. After that, you always mention the Northwest Ordinance, even though it had nothing to do with the Constitution. Finally, you laud blatantly unconstitutional things other people have done and — voila! — the Constitution disappears!

Of course, making a factually or logically sustainable argument that you are not violating the Constitution when you obviously are is not the real goal here. This is just the standard political kabuki dance, a necessary bit of deference-payment to those few rubes who might still think that the Constitution serves some legitimate purpose.

That said, don’t you expect more from our secretary of education? After all, he has undertaken the incredibly noble job of teaching all of our children. Don’t you expect complete honesty from him, and maybe even some respect for the Constitution that he has taken an oath to uphold?

Education Experts Propose Skills Set for Students Nationwide

"This is more bottom-up than top-down," said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve. He must be standing on his head.
Take a look at how many people working on the "skills set" have a working relationship with Achieve.

Washington Post, Sept. 22, 2009

Experts convened by the nation's governors and state schools chiefs on Monday proposed a set of math and English skills students should master before high school graduation, the first step toward what advocates hope will become common standards driving instruction in classrooms from coast to coast.

The proposal aims to lift expectations for students beyond current standards, which vary widely from state to state, and establish for the first time an effective national consensus on core academic goals to help the United States keep pace with global competitors. Such agreement has proven elusive in the past because of a long tradition of local control over standards, testing and curriculum.

In math, the proposal envisions that students would be able to solve systems of equations; find and interpret rates of change; and adapt probability models to solve real-world problems. In English language arts, they would be able to analyze how word choices shape the meaning and tone of a text; develop a style and tone of writing appropriate to a task and audience; and respond constructively to advance a discussion and build on the input of others.

The proposal, posted at http://www.corestandards.org, was drafted over the summer by a group including experts affiliated with the organizations that oversee the ACT and SAT college admissions exams, as well as Achieve Inc., a standards advocate based in the District. The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers launched the Common Core Standards Initiative this year, enlisting 48 states and the District of Columbia. The two holdouts are Texas, which recently updated its standards, and Alaska, where officials reportedly are reserving judgment.

The initiative has far to go. Experts are collecting comments for the next month. In 2010, they plan to write grade-by-grade standards from kindergarten onward. There is no guarantee that states will adopt the final product.

But Chester E. Finn Jr., a former Reagan administration education official, said Monday's development was significant. "We have now a public working draft of what could turn out to be the beginnings of national standards for K through 12 education," he said. "That's potentially a very big deal."

Monday's draft, according to Dane Linn, education director at the governors association's Center for Best Practices, was circulated among a wider group of experts, including Finn, and vetted by representatives from six states: California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts and Minnesota.

For many years, scholars and policymakers have debated whether public schools should be held to national academic standards. The 2002 No Child Left Behind law left it to states to determine what students ought to learn in reading and math and how they ought to be tested.

Proponents of national standards say it is folly to have uneven expectations for students when the United States trails several countries in Asia and Europe on international exams. Opponents say the federal government should not dictate what is taught.

"Advocates of true education reform -- rather than repackaging the same failed policies -- need to keep in mind a simple truth: Previous efforts to create national standards failed utterly because Americans have extremely varied educational wants and needs," said Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute. "Efforts to address all of them with one-size-fits-all Beltway diktats will be fruitless at best, and quite harmful at worst."

Advocates of the initiative say what sets it apart is that the federal government is a bystander more than a player.

"This is more bottom-up than top-down," said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve, who was a Clinton administration education official. "It is very important that the federal government is not a key actor in this."

However, the Obama administration has been cheering the effort and is planning a $350 million grant competition to encourage states or groups of states to adopt common, high-quality standards and develop tests based on them.

Even though I'm one who believes that the U.S. should join the rest of the industrialized world and have a genuine single-payer option, I was cheered by your message on health care last night.

You are such a brilliant man that I would have thought you could see the connection between the desire to lower health care costs and one of your other policy decisions. That is, I would have thought that you would understand that by continuing and even worsening George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind, you are making it increasingly impossible for children to have outdoor play, the physical exercise that is so essential for combating obesity in children. My youngest daughter, now in fourth grade at a public elementary school, has not had recess since...well, she never has. Of course, even if obesity in children were not the problem that it is, I would hope you would understand that play is even more essential to children being able to learn and grow.

The U.S. spends over 260 billion dollars on the struggle against obesity and diabetes. Surely, you can see that if we let teachers teach and let children be children, rather than both being servants to completely feckless and dangerous testing regimens (I beg you to read the independent research), then we will have taken a giant leap toward paying for your health care plan and toward fulfilling the promise of public education.

by Susan Harman

OUR NEW Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (and his president) argues that we need to "incent" teachers with "merit pay" to get them to do better: "I think we cannot do enough to recognize, reward, shine a spotlight on, and yes, incent excellence." To understand how many things are wrong with this assumption, we need to take it apart.

What does he mean by doing better? He means getting our students to score higher on the tests. But researchers have found that test scores correlate very highly with socio-economic status. Those schools with poor kids and high scores have likely resorted to gamesmanship: They hold kids over in ninth grade, so they don’t lower the all-important tenth grade scores and push out low scorers. They "re-norm" the tests and set new cutoff points so that last year’s failing score is this year's "proficient" score. They teach to the test by turning the curriculum into "drill-and-kill" test preparation--or simply teach the test itself (otherwise known as cheating).

So why does Duncan call it merit pay then? Is there anything meritorious about relentlessly subjecting kids to test prep? Defining a school’s success or a teacher's merit by high test scores is not just simplistic but profoundly wrong. A school devoted to test prep is a bad school whereas a school where children and adults delve deeply into a rich, experiential, relevant, and sophisticated curriculum is a good school. The latter may also have high scores but that's often a function of the socio-economic status of the children who go there since this kind of school tends to be populated by families who do not tolerate a test-prep curriculum.

Let's instead call merit pay what it is: pay-per-score.

Duncan thinks the reason children score low is that teachers don’t work hard enough at raising the scores. He might actually have some insight here. I don't know a teacher who thinks the tests provide any instructionally useful data, so why invest the time or energy in prepping students for them? Since teachers hate doing test prep, which is what much of our curriculum has become, perhaps Duncan is right that only money will motivate us to raise scores.

What would actually doing better in schools look like? It would mean building on what the teachers are already doing: designing engaging curriculum, forging relationships with children and their families and neighborhoods, and collaborating with their colleagues. It would take full advantage of the fact that many, if not most, teachers love working with kids. Duncan's concept of merit pay suggests that he doesn’t know this. Instead, he demands we substitute "drill-and-kill" test prep, which engages no one except the companies that publish the tests and the prep materials (the Big Three are Pearson, Houghton Mifflin, and the Bush family favorites, CTB/McGraw-Hill).

Would we need to be bribed to teach genuine curriculum better? Do our business and political leaders think people go into teaching for the money? Perhaps they haven’t looked at teacher salaries lately. Don't they know that people go into teaching for the love of the craft and the kids—in other words, because they feel a "calling"? Ask any of us, and I’m betting not one will say, "Ever since I was little I loved playing school and handing out bubble answer sheets to the other kids and making them fill them in."

If the federal government imposes a pay incentive based on test scores, who would want to teach poor kids since it's clear that they often score low on tests. Now, I know I just said that teachers don't do it for the money, and we all know that many of us are committed to working with poor kids. Nevertheless, to know up front that you will be paid less than those up the hill working with the rich kids--that could "dis-incent" some teachers. Plus the fact that middle-class parents substantially subsidize the "frills," which have been driven out of the generic school day by the pressure to raise test scores, means that the hills schools have art, music, libraries, foreign languages, P.E., science, trips, and recess. The flatlands schools--without these parental inputs--suffer from "drill-and-kill" phonics and arithmetic. Regardless of one's commitment to the poor, who would want to administer scripted texts as opposed to teaching genuine curriculum?

But perhaps the Broads, Gateses, and Business Roundtable folks who are running education in this country don’t love what they do. Perhaps they do, indeed, need to be "incented" with money to do what they do. Perhaps misery loves company. I feel sorry for them and would urge them to spend some time with a good teacher in a school that has escaped the drill-and-kill curricula these same businessmen have imposed on the rest of us. Perhaps a visit to the Sidwell Friends School, in Washington, D.C., where Malia and Sasha go, would change Duncan's perspective on what's valuable to learn--and what motivates teachers to teach it. It certainly ain't pay-per-score.

Susan Harman is a semi-retired principal, teacher, psychologist, and writer, and the Coordinator of CalCARE, the California Resistance to the standards and testing madness.

Ohanian NOTE: Collaborationists on this project are doing the high school components first. Then they will move backwards, inflicting their ideology on younger children. Supposedly, the US Department of Education will gather public comment on the program's rules over the next 30 days and accept applications for funding this fall.

Some Comments at the Washington Post website:
NomoStew wrote :
I guess Obama isn't satisfied with losing the conservatives, the police, and the doctors. Now he's going for teachers, too. Nobody knows whether these commercial tests really mean anything, and teachers are most likely to "succeed" according to their communities, not their teaching. This plan will accelerate the flight of good teachers from bad schools. Way to go, O. I'm starting to think the famous female politician who ought to quit is Clinton, to get ready for 2012. He has too many balls in the air already, and the fact that he is getting stretched too thin could not be better revealed than by this ignorant plan.

dwyerj1 wrote:
. . . .If you want your children to become truly educated, collect a good library of paper-printed books, and do it yourself. Read together "the best that has been known and thought [and written] in the world irrespective of practice, politics, and everything of the kind." Don't trust Secretary Duncan and President Obama and their Charter Schools with your kids.

Don't embrace the new religion of School Reform.

wolfcastle wrote:
Wait a minute...."link teacher pay to student achievement and adopt common national academic standards"...that certainly sounds a lot like No Child Left Behind.

By William Branigin

President Obama launched a competition Friday for $4.35 billion in federal education funds, urging states to ease restrictions on charter schools, link teacher pay to student achievement and adopt common national academic standards to be eligible for the money.

In a speech at the Education Department, Obama joined Education Secretary Arne Duncan in announcing draft criteria for the "Race to the Top" fund, which the administration is billing as the "largest-ever federal investment in education reform."

"America will not succeed in the 21st century unless we do a far better job of educating our sons and daughters," Obama said. "In a world where countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow, the future belongs to the nation that best educates its people."

Acknowledging that "our education system is falling short," he said that for years, "we've talked these problems to death . . . while doing all too little to solve them." Now, he said, he is challenging the nation's governors, schools boards, teachers, parents, students and others to meet "a few key benchmarks for reform" in order to compete for and win Race to the Top grants.

"That race starts today," Obama said. He pledged that "this competition will not be based on politics or ideology or the preferences of a particular interest group" but on "whether a state is ready to do what works."

If everyone pitches in, he said, "then we will not only strengthen our economy over the long run, and we will not only make America's entire education system the envy of the world, but we will launch a Race to the Top that will prepare every child, everywhere in America, for the challenges of the 21st century."

The fund "will reward eligible states for past accomplishments and create incentives for future improvement" in four key areas: toughening academic standards, recruiting and retaining effective teachers, turning around failing schools and tracking the performance of students and teachers, the Education Department said.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Obama made it clear that he wants to use the federal aid as leverage to reform the U.S. public education system, which by some measures has been lagging behind the school systems of other industrialized countries.

Speaking before Obama addressed the gathering Friday, Duncan underscored a need to target particular school districts for reform. He noted that 2,000 high schools produce half the country's dropouts and "a staggering 75 percent of our nation's minority dropouts."

Warning that states can increase or decrease their odds of winning federal support through their policies, Duncan said states that cap the number of charter schools or fail to hold such schools accountable, for example, "will be at a disadvantage," and those that prohibit linking student performance to teacher evaluations "will be ineligible" for the funding. Several states, including New York, California and Wisconsin, bar such linkages, which also are generally opposed by teachers unions.

In addition to the Race to the Top fund, which was established under the $787 billion economic stimulus package enacted in February, the government is making billions more available for educational innovation, technology and other programs, Duncan said.

"When you add it all up, the department will be disbursing almost $10 billion for education reform," he said. He urged state governments: "Do not let this unprecedented opportunity slip by."

The Education Department plans to gather public comment on the program's rules over the next 30 days before finalizing the criteria and accepting applications for funding this fall. Officials expect to release the first round of aid early next year, with a second tranche following by September 2010.

Today is a great day—not just for those of you here to listen to President Obama in a few minutes but for tens of thousands of teachers, parents, principals, school superintendents, and lawmakers across the country who have devoted their energy, their passion, and their commitment over the years to improving our nation's schools.

Today we cross an important threshold in education reform. Today we are announcing the draft guidelines for states to apply for the $4.35 billion dollar Race to the Top fund. Today we are here to announce—and celebrate—a new Race to the Top in schoolhouses across America.

I've been saying for months that we now have a perfect storm for reform. We have a President and a First Lady who believe passionately in the power of education to open doors—and whose own lives of studious learning and hard work are testaments to the fact that education is ultimately the great equalizer in America, no matter what your zip code.

We have what I call the "Barack Effect." The president—and the First Lady—have made education cool and hip again. I hear kids say all the time that they not only want to be the president, they want to be smart like the president.

We have great congressional leaders like Congressman George Miller, who has fought sometimes lonely battles, but always to make our schools better. We have union leaders like Randi Weingarten and Dennis Van Roekel, who are stepping outside their easy comfort zone and working with us to challenge the status quo. We have governors from around the country joining together to say no more to dumbing down academic standards and cheating students of a quality education.

And finally, for the first time in history, we have the resources at the federal level to drive reform.

I am not going to kid you—when I was superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, I did not always welcome calls from the U.S. Department of Education.

That's because the department, from its inception in 1980, has traditionally been a compliance-driven agency. For most of its existence, the department has only had modest discretionary funds available for reform and innovation— and a limited ability to push for better outcomes.

That's about to change. The $4.35 billion dollar Race to the Top program that we are unveiling today is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the federal government to create incentives for far-reaching improvement in our nation's schools.

Since the education department was created in 1980, eight of my predecessors have stood here. They fought to improve our schools, too. But none of them had the resources to encourage innovation that we have today.

In fact, if you take all of the discretionary money for reform that every one of my predecessors had—and then add it all together for the last 29 years in a row—it's still a much smaller money pot for reform than the $4.35 billion Race to the Top fund that we are announcing today.

For states, for district leaders, for unions, for business, and for non-profits, the Race to the Top is the equivalent of education reform's moon shot. And the administration is determined—I am determined—not to miss this opportunity.

What is the administration going to be looking for in the Race to the Top competition? We are going to be scrutinizing state applications for a coordinated and deep-seated commitment to reform. And we are going to be awarding grants on a competitive basis in two rounds, allowing first-round losers to make necessary changes and reapply.

We take our cue here from the president. He starts with the understanding that maintaining the status quo in our schools is unacceptable. He recognizes that America needs urgently to reduce its high dropout rates and elevate the quality of K-12 schooling—not just to propel the economic recovery but also because students need stronger skills to compete with students in India and China.

Today, more than ever, better schooling provides a down payment on the nation's future. As President Obama puts it, "education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity and success—it's a prerequisite for success." Yet I think we all know that far too many schools fail to prepare their students today for success in college or a career.

Under the Race to the Top guidelines, states seeking funds will be pressed to implement four core, interconnected reforms. We sometimes call them the four assurances, and those assurances are what we are going to be looking for from states, districts, and their local partners in reform.

For starters, we expect that winners of the Race to the Top grants will work to reverse the pervasive dumbing down of academic standards and assessments that has taken place in many states.

A low-income, middle school student in San Antonio should not be held to a lower standard in algebra than a middle school student in Shaker Heights—or Shanghai. That's why we are looking for Race to the Top states to adopt common, internationally-benchmarked K-12 standards that truly prepare students for college and careers. To speed this process, the Race to the Top program is going to set aside $350 million to competitively fund the development of rigorous, common state assessments.

Second, we want to close the data gap that now handcuffs districts from tracking growth in student learning and improving classroom instruction. Award-winning states will be able to monitor growth in student learning—and identify effective instructional practices.

Third, it is no secret that when it comes to schools, talent matters—tremendously. To boost the quality of teachers and principals, especially in high-poverty schools and hard-to-staff subjects, states and districts should be able to identify effective teachers and principals. At the local level we want to see better strategies in place to reward and retain more top-notch teachers—and improve or replace ones who aren't up to the job.

And finally, to turn around the lowest-performing schools, states and districts must be ready to institute far-reaching reforms, replace school staff, and change the school culture. We cannot continue to tinker in terrible schools where students fall further and further behind, year after year.

Now those are our four assurances, the fore core reforms that we are looking for. But I want to be clear that these four reforms are interrelated, so that one reform reinforces the others.

When teachers get better data on student growth, it empowers teachers to tailor classroom instruction to the needs of their students and boost student achievement.

When principals are able to identify their most effective and least effective teachers, it makes it easier for them to place teachers where they are needed most—and provide struggling teachers with help.

When superintendents have the authority to tackle their lowest performing schools by replacing staff and shaking up the school culture, they will have the ability—for the first time—to close or remake the dropout factories in our urban districts that are at the root of our dropout problem.

And when state lawmakers and chief school officers can evaluate the college-readiness of students and their ability to compete with their peers—not just in nearby states but in other nations—state officials will be able to diagnose the strengths and weaknesses of the state system in a global economy—again, for the first time.

The Race to the Top program is going to mark a new federal partnership in education reform with states, districts, and unions to accelerate reform. We are going to be consulting and soliciting the input of all stakeholders, and I plan to hold a conference call for governors, chief state officers, state lawmakers and state school boards on August 5.

But I want to be clear that the Race to the Top is also a reform competition, one where states can increase or decrease their odds of winning federal support.

States, for example, that limit alternative routes to certification for teachers and principals, or cap the number of charter schools, will be at a competitive disadvantage. And states that explicitly prohibit linking data on achievement or student growth to principal and teacher evaluations will be ineligible for reform dollars until they change their laws.

As big as the Race to the Top fund is, it's not the only major lever for transformational reform. We are also going to be releasing shortly the guidelines for the $3.5 billion Title I School Improvement Grants. And most of that money is going to go to low-income districts that are willing to turn around their lowest-performing schools.

Later this summer we expect to publish the metrics for the competitive $650 million dollar Invest in Innovation Fund, which will award districts and non-profits that are developing cutting-edge reforms, piloting promising new programs or taking proven programs to scale.

We also have $650 million dollars to award in education technology grants to states and districts that are doing a good job of using technology to enhance learning. We have $200 million in Recovery Act funding for the Teacher Incentive Fund, which supports performance-based teacher and principal compensation systems in high-need schools. And finally, we have more than $300 million available to help states build data systems that will drive reforms.

I know I've just thrown a lot of numbers and programs at you. But the long and short of it, is that when you add it all up, the department will be disbursing almost $10 billion for education reform.

Ten billion dollars is not chump change. And to every governor who ever aspired to be his state's "education governor," I say: do not let this unprecedented opportunity slip away.

Let me close by saying that the president and I are not naïve about the difficulty of reform. I served as superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools for seven years. And I saw firsthand that the system often serves the interests of adults better than its students.

But I don't accept much of the pessimism and age-old apathy about the potential of school reform. During my seven years as CEO of Chicago's schools, tests scores increased on state and national exams, and the percentage of students graduating increased. That happened not just because of the district's efforts but because teachers, community leaders, and parents worked hard to make reform a reality.

Since being confirmed as Secretary, I have visited 23 states and met countless students, teachers, parents and administrators. They are hungering for change. I've seen districts and high-performing schools that are closing achievement gaps, raising graduation rates, and sending disadvantaged young people to college with scholarships in hand.

In just the months since President Obama took office, many states have adopted reforms that would have been almost unthinkable a year ago. Earlier this spring, 46 states signed on to a state-led process to develop a common core of K-12 state standards in English language arts and math. At the same time, states such as Tennessee, Rhode Island, Indiana, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Colorado, and Illinois have lifted restrictions on charter school growth.

So, despite the obstacles, I remain optimistic about America's capacity for transformational change. As I said today in the Washington Post, the edifice of education reform will take years to build. But the Race to the Top starts today.

Let me ask: Please put your hand up if you are ready to sign on to the Race to the Top!

That is what I'm talking about. As Sam Cooke used to sing, a change is gonna come. Today that change has begun. Thank you, all of you, for your hard work on behalf of our nation's schoolchildren.

"The members who comprised it were seven-eighths of them, ...the meanest kind of bawling and blowing officeholders, office-seekers, pimps, malignants, conspirators, murderers, fancy-men, custom-house clerks, contracts, kept-editors, spaniels well train'd to carry and fetch, jobbers, infidels, disunionists, terrorists, mail riflers, slave-catchers, pushers of slavery, creatures of the President, creatures of would-be Presidents, spies, bribers, compromisers, lobbyists, spongers, ruin'd sports, expell'd gamblers, policy-backers, monte-dealers, duelists, carriers of conceal'd weapons, deaf men, pimpled men, scarred inside with vile disease, gaudy outside with gold chains made from the people's money and harlots' money twisted together; crawling, serpentine men, the lousy combinings and born freedom-sellers of the earth. "

The perfect storm also includes the great leadership on Capitol Hill—on both sides of the aisle—from Lamar Alexander and Senator Michael Enzi to Ted Kennedy and George Miller. . . .

First, we are encouraging states to adopt rigorous standards that are internationally benchmarked. A nation without true career- and college-ready standards is lying to its children. A nation with low academic standards is telling students and parents that our kids are doing well—when, in fact, they are not.

A nation that does not benchmark its standards against the highest international standards is crippling our children in the competition for jobs.

That competition is not just coming from the next street or even the next state. It's coming from India and China, Singapore and Korea. . . .

I want to thank Governor Pawlenty for taking a leadership role at Achieve right now, and also thank Governors Granholm, Carcieri, Rendell, Bredesen, Heineman, and Patrick.

Gene Wilhoit has made national standards his top priority as the executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers. Thanks to his organization and the NGA – your hard work and leadership is paying off.

As I said before, 46 states and three territories have now committed to creating common internationally-benchmarked college and career-ready standards. And you deserve a big, big hand for that.

Creating common standards hasn’t always been popular. Right now, though, there’s a growing consensus that this is the right thing to do.

The list of supporters for this effort is long: The National Education Association, the American Federation of Teachers, the Council of the Great City Schools, and business leaders. From what I’ve heard on our listening tour, teachers in the classroom are supporting you as well. . . .[emphasis added]

In 1989, CEOs of the nation's largest 218 corporations met to figure out how to promote the National Educational Goals developed by the nation's governors. They insisted then and continue to insist now that their decision to bring the resources of corporate America behind a specific educational reform agenda stemmed from the threat to the United States' premier economic status in the world.

Edward Rust, CEO state Farm Insurance, co-chair Business Coalition for Excellence in Education, chair, Business Roundtable Education Task Force, chair National Alliance of Business, cochair, Committee for Economic Development Subcommittee on Education Policy, Member of the Board Achieve, member of the board McGraw-Hill, President-elect Bush's transition advisory Team Committee on Education, board of trustees American Enterprise Institute, has been called a bulldog for standards. He uses his powerful web of corporate cronies to push for the business model of school management, which emphasizes testing and hierarchy.

Since 1989, the Business Roundtable bully pulpit has pushed state governments to establish rigorous and measurable standards in core academic subjects for all students (emphasis in original) and adopt statewide testing to find out whether students are meeting the standards. The BRT focuses on standards because "standards drive curriculum, teacher training and assessment." When you wonder why the number of state standards exceeds the population of Liechtenstein, thank the Business Roundtable, who insist that, as night follows day, "When standards are high and assessments are geared to each standards, teaching improves and student achievment rises." (Business Roundtable 1995)

Politics and Parsnips: Obama's Common Core

Sesame vs. Watermelon: What is Missing in the National Standard Debate

Education: Debunking the Case for National Standards - Alfie Kohn

Committee Members

Full Committee, 111th Congress

National PTA to Mobilize Parents for Common Core Standards

Receives $1 Million Grant From Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to Engage Parents in Four States

Duncan Blows Off Constitution, Facts